sarah707
01-02-2017, 05:58 PM
The Government have released a series of new reports, some of which are related to childminders, including –
‘Childminders views on funded early education’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586224/Childminder_s_views_on_funded_early_education_-_RR646.pdf
This is a study of the views of only 40 childminders and was conducted before the results of the consultation into the 30 hours were known. It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know – that childminders are under-funded and many will not have spaces for 30 hours funded children because they are already full. You can find more feedback including comments from Neil Leitch from PLA (always a supporter of independent childminders) in this Nursery World article –
Study highlights barriers for childminders offering funded places | Nursery World (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1148841/study-highlights-barriers-preventing-childminders-offering-funded).
I challenged one of the comments in the study regarding childminders charging parents for petrol costs as part of the ways in which underfunding might be recouped with the writer of the report who told me that it’s not her problem but she will pass my comments on to DfE. Extra charges might include, for example, food and outings but must not include petrol or the childminder will be classed as providing a taxi service and we don’t want to open that can of worms!
…………………………………………†¦
To complement this study, DfE have also sought the views of parents about the 30 hours funding. I note they have called the funded hours ‘free’ when it certainly isn’t free for providers:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586231/Parents__views_and_demand_for_30_hour_s_free_child care_-_RR611.pdf
The study basically says that parents are likely to use the extra 15 hours if they are eligible to claim them because it will bring their childcare costs down and allow them to work more hours… nothing new there then!
…………………………………………†¦
One of the new reports from SEED (Study of Early Education and Development) and Frontier Economics for DfE covers ‘The cost and funding of early education’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586235/SEED_-_The_cost_and_funding_of_early_education_-_RR552.pdf
I wonder why it has been published now when most of the LAs have either decided or are well into the process of deciding the 30 hours funding figures.
…………………………………………†¦
Another new report from SEED talks about ‘Good Practice in Early Education’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586242/SEED__Good_Practice_in_Early_Education_-_RR553.pdf
I can’t find anything new – and it’s only based on 16 case studies. It comprises over 100 pages re-hashing what we already know about supporting children’s learning. The executive summary on pages 8 – 16 will give you the information you need if you have a spare few minutes and a cuppa in your hand. It covers good practice in relation to learning and development; management and leadership; staff recruitment, retention and development and engagement with parents and home learning.
…………………………………………†¦
A recent speech by Nick Gibb MP is of concern to many early years providers who believe in child-centred teaching.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nick-gibb-the-evidence-in-favour-of-teacher-led-instruction
It seems odd that the SEED report above ‘Good practice in early education’ promotes a child-focused approach and concludes that ‘good practice in relation to curriculum planning included approaches that were tailored to children’s individual needs’ (Page 8) while the Gibb speech encourages a teacher led environment and concludes that ‘The most effective, teacher-led practices should be twinned with a knowledge-rich curriculum. That is how evidence can and should be turned into policy, action and change.’
…………………………………………†¦
While we are in a reading mood, enhancing our CPD as we go, there is a new report relating to children with additional needs… ‘Meeting the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities in the early years’ is a report from NatCen Social Research, on behalf of the Department for Education and uses case studies and in-depth interviews with nursery managers, staff and parents to draw its conclusions:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586240/SEED_Meeting_the_needs_of_children_with_SEND_in_th e_early_years_-_RR554.pdf
…………………………………………†¦
Then there are 2 reports about the Early Years Pupil Premium including – ‘Experiences of the Early Years Pupil Premium’ and ‘Early Years Pupil Premium Survey’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586474/SEED-Experiences_of_the_Early_Years_Pupil_Premium_-_RR645.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586225/Early_Years_Pupil_Premium_Providers_Survey_-__RR644.pdf
It talks in part about how childminders have used EYPP – we know that Ofsted are robust when inspecting providers who have received EYPP to ensure it has led to raised outcomes for the child for whom it was paid so this section will be of use to those who receive it and want to spend it wisely. It also looks at whether providers feel EYPP has impacted on outcomes for children – looking at the summary report, childminders can clearly learn from group providers when considering how to evidence measuring the impact of the funding on outcomes for children.
:D
‘Childminders views on funded early education’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586224/Childminder_s_views_on_funded_early_education_-_RR646.pdf
This is a study of the views of only 40 childminders and was conducted before the results of the consultation into the 30 hours were known. It doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know – that childminders are under-funded and many will not have spaces for 30 hours funded children because they are already full. You can find more feedback including comments from Neil Leitch from PLA (always a supporter of independent childminders) in this Nursery World article –
Study highlights barriers for childminders offering funded places | Nursery World (http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1148841/study-highlights-barriers-preventing-childminders-offering-funded).
I challenged one of the comments in the study regarding childminders charging parents for petrol costs as part of the ways in which underfunding might be recouped with the writer of the report who told me that it’s not her problem but she will pass my comments on to DfE. Extra charges might include, for example, food and outings but must not include petrol or the childminder will be classed as providing a taxi service and we don’t want to open that can of worms!
…………………………………………†¦
To complement this study, DfE have also sought the views of parents about the 30 hours funding. I note they have called the funded hours ‘free’ when it certainly isn’t free for providers:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586231/Parents__views_and_demand_for_30_hour_s_free_child care_-_RR611.pdf
The study basically says that parents are likely to use the extra 15 hours if they are eligible to claim them because it will bring their childcare costs down and allow them to work more hours… nothing new there then!
…………………………………………†¦
One of the new reports from SEED (Study of Early Education and Development) and Frontier Economics for DfE covers ‘The cost and funding of early education’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586235/SEED_-_The_cost_and_funding_of_early_education_-_RR552.pdf
I wonder why it has been published now when most of the LAs have either decided or are well into the process of deciding the 30 hours funding figures.
…………………………………………†¦
Another new report from SEED talks about ‘Good Practice in Early Education’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586242/SEED__Good_Practice_in_Early_Education_-_RR553.pdf
I can’t find anything new – and it’s only based on 16 case studies. It comprises over 100 pages re-hashing what we already know about supporting children’s learning. The executive summary on pages 8 – 16 will give you the information you need if you have a spare few minutes and a cuppa in your hand. It covers good practice in relation to learning and development; management and leadership; staff recruitment, retention and development and engagement with parents and home learning.
…………………………………………†¦
A recent speech by Nick Gibb MP is of concern to many early years providers who believe in child-centred teaching.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/nick-gibb-the-evidence-in-favour-of-teacher-led-instruction
It seems odd that the SEED report above ‘Good practice in early education’ promotes a child-focused approach and concludes that ‘good practice in relation to curriculum planning included approaches that were tailored to children’s individual needs’ (Page 8) while the Gibb speech encourages a teacher led environment and concludes that ‘The most effective, teacher-led practices should be twinned with a knowledge-rich curriculum. That is how evidence can and should be turned into policy, action and change.’
…………………………………………†¦
While we are in a reading mood, enhancing our CPD as we go, there is a new report relating to children with additional needs… ‘Meeting the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities in the early years’ is a report from NatCen Social Research, on behalf of the Department for Education and uses case studies and in-depth interviews with nursery managers, staff and parents to draw its conclusions:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586240/SEED_Meeting_the_needs_of_children_with_SEND_in_th e_early_years_-_RR554.pdf
…………………………………………†¦
Then there are 2 reports about the Early Years Pupil Premium including – ‘Experiences of the Early Years Pupil Premium’ and ‘Early Years Pupil Premium Survey’:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586474/SEED-Experiences_of_the_Early_Years_Pupil_Premium_-_RR645.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/586225/Early_Years_Pupil_Premium_Providers_Survey_-__RR644.pdf
It talks in part about how childminders have used EYPP – we know that Ofsted are robust when inspecting providers who have received EYPP to ensure it has led to raised outcomes for the child for whom it was paid so this section will be of use to those who receive it and want to spend it wisely. It also looks at whether providers feel EYPP has impacted on outcomes for children – looking at the summary report, childminders can clearly learn from group providers when considering how to evidence measuring the impact of the funding on outcomes for children.
:D